Likelihood of discontinuous progress around the development of AGI

I don't recall portraying anyone in that light. I highlighted the nature of an industry. Who aligns themselves to this nature was left unstated. If this clear and present truth offends, its likely because it has merit and is validated by the level of offense one encounters. It quite clearly cannot be defended. If you believe what I have stated can be, you're more than welcome to produce sound arguments that try. We can walk through an incredible amount of examples of what I have stated together.

> Hinton was working in neural nets even in the time when they were uncool and fringe area of research. They didn't sell out AGI for some profit motive .

Listen to what you're saying.... > neural nets even in the time when they were uncool and fringe area of research. And yet, it has made others billions and continues to mint money. Whose centered on the fundamental problem as opposed to conducting applied engineering for profit? Whose over marketing themselves and their efforts as fundamental theoretical research when its more or less optimizations for applied engineering? What ideation is new and what is simply relabeling old pioneer's work as one's own? Who minted LSTM? Whose name remains all over it? Who made a mockery of a prominent contributor? Who no longer discloses the details of their work given the proven nature of the industry? If the critique doesn't apply let it fly.

Btw, Hinton recently stated : https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w...

Whose taking this advice? Whose funding people thinking outside of the box? Whose hiring someone whose thinking outside of the box? So, whose really and whole-fully centered on solving AGI for the sake of solving it? It's fun to market yourself as doing so for increase prominence/money. It's a whole other ball game to be internally oriented and structured in pursuit of it. Applied engineering/optimizations of Weak AI for business applications is not AGI research.

> The thing is we don't have any clear path laid to follow to achieve AGI

The path was always there. One only need pursue it for pursuits sake. No exits. No distractions. No business case. No payouts. A desk pen/paper.

> Various paths proposed earlier turned out over optimistic and dead end.

False. Various paths proposed earlier are the same ones being turned into profitable solutions today. They are the same ones underlying the bulk of white papers today. There weren't over optimistic. They weren't dead ends which is why various groups are using them to suck down billions of dollars today. What happened that caused the previous AI winter is that people rushed fundamental research into applied engineering. The same as what's happening today and will lead to a 'winter' for various groups who are deep in it. Statistics overshadowed fundamental mathematics and understanding. Brute force over-took intelligence... And yes that leads to dead-ends .. clearly. Yet, here we are again. A bunch of statistical brute force machines being over-marketed for profit leading fundamental research into a dead end. Google has spoke out about it, Hinton has, Microsoft has, yan lecun to echo my sentiments. Yet, the allure of profit/notoriety continues to attract the same thinking/soon to be failed approaches to something that is fundamentally beyond current work.

> The current "weak AI" you disparage is an achievement expanding generalization of problem spaces using unified methods way better than past systems.

It's distributed statistical optimization. There's no need to fluff me. I am centered on it. It works via large data sets, limited and specific state spaces, and large amounts of computational resources running tons of iterative steps. It is brittle and not general. It works today because we have enough computing resources such that we can brute force various problems. Problems that are privy to statistical patterning.

> So even if our current progress seems disappointing

I never stated I was disappointed nor did I disparage anyone. I stated more clearly the nature of the progress, the goals and driving forces, and the fast approaching limitations. This frees one to respectfully acknowledge and consider what's been done and move forward and beyond it to more capable pastures.

> please examine what's happened and why research has taken the current path before tarnishing researchers with unjustified quips.

Please reduce your sensitivity level so that you can reason yourself to higher planes of consideration. Less emotion and more reasoned/truthful admission. I know exactly what happened to research in a time's past which informed me as to how to conduct myself in the present. I know exactly what driving forces are and I know quite clearly as we all do as to how they influence people. Hinton as well as others now public agree. Microsoft/Google have stated much of the work is overhyped. Hinton says pioneers should scrap everything and start over. LeCun stated that deep learning is approaching a brick wall and overhyped. It's exactly what I said to myself years ago and am stating now and there's zero problems with stating this truth as so many have no brought themselves to state.

> Gene editing

Those aren't the locks I'm talking about and you should take note that its possible because you have environmental access to them.

> is very complex and fragile

Indeed. Terminal error could result in a particular case. Game over man !

> There is no reason to presume that a software system built by a team of humans will be nearly as complex, unless the AGI itself is not too bright or cannot self-improve to be smart enough to understand itself, or sufficiently clever to find a way to social engineer toward eventually getting access to its source code or to reverse engineer itself to an extent that even humans can.

You guys really don't want to let go of this sci-fi fantasy do you? LOL. How long did it take human beings to discover how to edit their genetic code? You were babbling in caves some time ago. You think a 10 year old knows how to modify themselves without self destructing in the initial trials?

> self-improve to be smart enough to understand itself

Many people don't have an even basic understanding of themselves much less how to even psychologically re-order their own behavior. In the scenario that someone becomes sufficiently capable of engineering an equivalent... What level of understanding do you think such an individual would have to be able to engineer AGI? What intelligence level would you attribute to that person? And you think they wont understand potential ways this can occur and prevent it? Also, you again talk about access... It's a running binary. A compiler is needed. There's a power plug. Its operations are monitored as is its output. It's literally a box with a tremendous number of locks it doesn't have the capability to pick... Just like (you) .. even as you go hacking about your genetic code ^_-

In a phrase like "information theory", "theory" means "body of literature", not "unproven hypothesis". Information theory isn't really something that can be invalidated, no more than the Pythagorean Theorem can be invalidated.

I'm self funded. I have been for a number of years and throughout the crucial stages of my work. I chose this route to ensure the integrity of my work.

While I have always remained truthful which indeed has consequence, I am becoming my open as it does not (at this stage). I know exactly who frequents this board, who will likely be able to read my comments here and other places where I have openly attributed my name. I also am aware of what can be mined to unmask me in other places. I know exactly what the potential consequences are.

If funding is withheld from me because I state inconvenient truths, I don't desire it from such entities. Capital is plentiful in the world. Powerful ideas and manifestations are not.

I speak more openly because I see a world increasingly at war with itself because truth and intelligence have sit at the back of the bus whereas disinformation/manipulation/profit for profit sake sit at the front. I don't want to birth something as powerful as AGI into such a world. I don't want to be funded/influenced by someone who holds contrary views... which is why I've operated from my own capital base up until now.

How open and frank I am relates to the stage of my work. Take that as you will. For some, the bane meme comes to mind. Were going to enter into the intelligence age on new terms not via carry over terms dictated by careless capital. If a particular capital entity wants to be on board for the incredible financial upside such a technology maintains, they'll necessarily have to get on board and get comfortable with the ideas that I have outlined.

It isn't a hard pill to swallow. It's centered on truth and genuine progress of mankind : Intelligence embodied in a truer form. It currently functions on consumer grade hardware. You can also take that as you will.

Thank you for the advice ^_^. However, I know exactly how the 'game' is played.

Thanks for your reply. I have a few follow up questions.

(1) Are you working on this alone? Do you want to work with others?

(2) What is your end goal for this technology?

(3) How has your assessment of human intelligence changed upon discovering what you claim to have discovered? Are you impressed or disappointed?

(4) Would you say that developing AGI or developing free unlimited energy requires greater conceptual leaps in terms of research?

(5) How can you be sure that a government agency won't seize and classify your discoveries in national security interest, nor whether this has already happened in the past? (Or perhaps you are part of a PR campaign to finally make this technology public?)

(6) It's true that the creator of an agent with AGI can set restrictions on its potential behavior, but it's not true that a malicious creator of another agent with AGI couldn't permit it to behave in a destructive manner. Why should you be trusted to keep this technology to yourself when it might be in the public interest to take it from you by force? (I'm not saying that that would be "ethical" or consistent with the ideals espoused by liberal democracies. However it's perfectly consistent with the practical realities of the world.)

(7) I know you don't want to reveal particular details, but if you don't want people to think you are a crackpot at least give an idea of your estimation for the conceptual profundity of your discoveries (where you claim to have invalidated previously established theories): is it more akin to solving the P vs. NP problem, or more akin to having the insight that the brain doesn't have a dedicated floating point unit that performs gradient descent in order to set weights on neuronal connections?

(8) How difficult would it be to reverse engineer your technology if you ever commercialized it?